broker_confirm_quote

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with the warning that confirm=true must only be set after user agreement and that this is the final action. It also exposes the non-obvious preview behavior of the first call. This meaningfully augments the annotation-only picture with safety-relevant behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then the critical confirmation workflow. Every sentence carries either identity, workflow, or safety information. There is no filler or restatement of available schema data.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the essential workflow for a destructive execution tool: do not confirm until the user agrees, and expect a preview on the first call. It names the source quote tools and the required proforma_id provenance. It does not describe the return payload, but with no output schema and a strong parameter schema plus annotations, the remaining gap is minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters in detail. The description nevertheless adds value by explaining that proforma_id comes from broker_quote_* operations and by clarifying the confirm parameter's preview-then-execute behavior. It does not need to repeat jwt or idempotency_key because those are already well covered in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's verb and resource: it 'confirms and executes' a 'previously created proforma' from broker_quote_buy, broker_quote_sell, or broker_quote_swap. It also frames itself as 'STEP 2' and the 'Final action', which distinguishes it from the quote-creation sibling tools. This is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit workflow instructions: first call without confirm=true returns a preview, and confirm=true should only be set after the user agrees. It also implies the correct timing by stating it follows broker_quote_* operations. This is strong, actionable guidance on when and how to invoke the tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.